What really happened with the Banu Qurayza?

Part 3: Muhammad's appointment of Sa`d bin Mu`adh,
his judgment, its execution and conclusions

In the last part we have investigated the personality of Sa`d bin
Mu`adh is, his character, his hatred for the Jews, and in particular
his last wish of finishing off the Banu Qurayza. That was a long
chapter. For reminder and summary, let us requote a few pertinent
statements:

"Yes, by God," he replied, "it is the first defeat that God
has brought on the infidel and I would rather see them
slaughtered than left alive." [Sirat, p. 301]

'O you Muslims! Who will relieve me from that
man who has hurt me with his evil statement about my family? By
Allah, I know nothing except good about my family and they have
blamed a man about whom I know nothing except good and he used
never to enter my home except with me.' Sad bin Mu'adh the brother
of Banu 'Abd Al-Ashhal got up and said, 'O Allah's Apostle! I will
relieve you from him; if he is from the tribe of Al-Aus, then I
will chop his head off, and if he is from our brothers, i.e.
Al-Khazraj, then order us, and we will fulfill your order.'
[Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 462]

The last direct encounter of Sa`d with the Banu Qurayza ended in insult:

[T]hey spoke disparagingly of the apostle, saying, `Who is the
apostle of God? We have no agreement or undertaking with
Muhammad.' Sa'd b. Mu'adh reviled them and they reviled him. He
(Sa`d) was a man of hasty temper and Sa`d b. `Ubada said to him,
'Stop insulting them, for the dispute between us is too serious
for recrimination.' Then the two Sa`ds returned to the apostle ...
[page 453]

His last will:

"O God, seeing that you have appointed war between us and
them grant me martyrdom and do not let me die until I have
seen my desire upon B. Qurayza." [page 459]

Is there any room for ambiguity in these statements? Muhammad knew
all this. Muhammad was a great leader. He knew his men and he in
particularly knew Sa`d. Could it be that this information is the
reason why he gave the judgement of the Qurayza to Sa`d?

In part 1, we saw that Muhammad had intended to kill the Banu
Quaynuqa`, but he was hindered forcefully. Somehow his intention
to kill the Banu al-Nadir didn't work out either. Now, he has
conquered the Banu Qurayza and they know Muhammad desires to kill
them. Abu Lubaba knows he wants to kill them wholesale, the tribe
of al-Aus know it and therefore they jump to their feet as soon
as they learn of the surrender of the Banu Qurayza and start
pleading for them, appealing not to Muhammad's mercy, but to his
justice in dealing with them just as he listened in the earlier
case and gave the judgment to their brother tribe the Khazraj.
"Be just Muhammad, for our sake," they plead.

We need to examine this intercession and Muhammad's response.
Pay close attention to the sequence of words in this crucial
passage.

In the morning they [the B.Quraiza] submitted to the apostle's
judgement and al-Aus lept up and said, 'O Apostle, they are our
allies, not allies of Khazraj, and you know how you recently
treated the allies of our brethren.' Now the apostle had
besieged B. Qaynuqa` who were allies of al-Khazraj and when
they submitted to his judgement `Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul
had asked him for them and he gave them to him; so when al-Aus
spoke thus the apostle said: 'Will you be satisfied, O Aus,
if one of your own number pronounces judgement on them ?'
When they agreed he said that Sa`d b. Mu`adh was the man.
[page 463]

The Aus are refering back to the similar incident with the
Banu Qaynuqa`. In that case the forceful intercession of
`Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul from the Khazraj resulted in
sparing the life of the tribe and they were sent into exile
instead. So the Aus appeal to Muhammad that he may remember
this and deal in equal manner with them and their allies.
That would only be just. Muhammad can not really argue against
an appeal to justice and does not want to be seen as favoring
one tribe of his followers over another. How does he react?
What did the Aus hear Muhammad ask?

'Will you be satisfied, O Aus, if one of your own
number pronounces judgement on them ?'

This is deliberately ambiguous. The natural sense is that the group
of the al-Aus interceding with Muhammad took his question
"you, O Aus ... one of your own" as addressed to THEM, who were
standing in front of Muhammad and interceding with him. Even if
some of them might have been suspicious about who that might be,
what can they really respond to that offer? They could hardly
answer him "Wait a minute. How do you mean this?" Most likely,
they looked at each other and thought this couldn't have resolved
any better. There was no choice but answering this question with
"yes". Maybe Muhammad would even leave the choice of the judge to
them? The question does NOT say: "Will you accept whomever I
appoint from among you?" The question is so open-ended, they
cannot possibly say "No" to it. However, after they have committed
to this solution, THEN Muhammad appoints Sa`d who has this strong
hatred for the Jews, and Muhammad knows Sa`d will judge exactly
as Muhammad wanted it to be.

Is that not at least a if not the natural way of understanding
this exchange? Muhammad was very clever in his way of asking them,
nevertheless getting his will in the end, and even looking merciful
and generous while doing so. Howver, in Part 2 we gave plenty of
evidence that Muhammad knew the mind of Sa`d very well and he knew
what decision this man would make.

We know that Sa`d was at this time in a tent, on his bed, and
this was in Medina, some distance away from the fort of the Banu
Qurazya. Sa`d was not in the immediate vicinity, he had a mortal
wound. He was sick, and he was very weak. When the al-Aus went
to get Sa`d they had to help him on the donkey to bring him. He
was so weak, he couldn't even walk, or get on his donkey by his
own strength. He was certainly not the obvious choice among the
Aus for this judgment. Certainly not obvious for the Aus who
interceded with Muhammad. But as already indicated, even if they
had thought of it, they could hardly respond "no" to Muhammad's
offer.

Sa`d is thus appointed and the Sirat continues:

The apostle had put Sa`d in a tent belonging to a woman of
Aslam called Rufayda inside his mosque. She used to nurse
the wounded and see to those Muslims who needed care. The
apostle had told his people when Sa`d had been wounded by
an arrow at the battle of the Trench to put him in Rufayda's
tent until he could visit him later. When the apostle appointed
him umpire in the matter of B. Qurayza, his people came to him
and mounted him on a donkey on which they had put a leather
cushion, he being a corpulent man. As they brought him to the
apostle they said, 'Deal kindly with your friends, for the
apostle has made you umpire for that very purpose.' When
they persisted he said, 'The time has come for Sa`d in the
cause of God, not to care for any man's censure.' Some of
his people who were there went back to the quarter of
B. `Abdu'l-Ashhal and announced to them the death of
B. Qurayza before Sa`d got to them, because of what they
had heard him say. [page 463]

Not surprising, Sa`d is true to his character. When he heard he
was chosen to speak judgment on the Banu Qurayza, he knows well
what Muhammad had him chosen for. He would be doing the will of
God (??) and not the desires of his friends who were to weak
and mild with those enemies of God and his apostle. Muhammad
could depend on one of his most loyal friends that he would do
his will.

When Sa`d reached the apostle and the Muslims the apostle
told them to get up to greet their leader. The muhajirs of
Quraysh thought that the apostle meant the Ansar, while the
latter thought that he meant everyone, so they got up and
said 'O Abu `Amr, the apostle has entrusted to you the
affair of your allies that you may give judgement concerning
them.' Sa`d asked, 'Do you covenant by Allah that you accept
the judgement I pronounce on them?' They said Yes, and he
said, 'And is it incumbent on the one who is here ?' (looking)
in the direction of the apostle not mentioning him out of
respect, and the apostle answered Yes. Sa`d said, 'Then I
give judgement that the men should be killed, the property
divided, and the women and children taken as captives.'
[Sirat, page 464]

Carefully look at the question posed by Sa'd. He asks "Do YOU accept
my judgment on THEM?' This means, the Banu Qurayza were NOT asked,
but this question was addressed to the Muslims, especially the tribe
of Aus and to Muhammad.

There was no refusing of Muhammad's judgment, the Banu Qurayza had
surrendered to Muhammad unconditionally. It was the tribe of
al-Aus who had pleaded for them and Muhammad tricked them with a
clever response. Sa`d was appointed and Muhammad would get his way.
At this point, the Aus can no longer refuse the judgment of Sa`d
having agreed to it prior in their pleading with Muhammad. They
can only accept the situation as it is now.

But it is important, this is only a decision of acceptance
by the al-Aus. The Banu Quraiza are not even present. They were not
asked. After they had already surrendered unconditionally, they
had no voice in the matter anymore.

What is Muhammad's response to this cruel judgment? The text
continues:

That doesn't sound "shocked". This is approval if not exuberance
that Sa`d made the "right" decision. There is no grief, no pity.
It is praise for his decision.

If Muhammad was sure about God's judgement how could he give
it to Sa`d and risk that other than God's judgement will come
to pass? On the other hand, if God had not given him a specific
command about the judgement, how does Muhammad dare to ascribe
to God this cruel judgement that came out of the evil desires
of merciless men?

The text of Sirat continues:

Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina
in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then
the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still
its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent
for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they
were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy
of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There
were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as
800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the
apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with
them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see
that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away
do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the
apostle made an end of them.

Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he
had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part
so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his
hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he
said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he
who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and
said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre
have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down
and his head was struck off. [Sirat, page 464]

Apparently Muhammad himself worked on the digging of the trench
into which the massacred Jews were to be thrown. But he did not
only take part in those preparations, the formulation of the text
states that HE sent for them and STRUCK OFF their heads. This
sounds like he personally struck off at least the heads of those
two mentioned men and maybe of more. Beheading 600-700 men one
by one takes a substantial time and strength. Certainly this was
not done by one man alone but by many. Whoever was appointed to
execute the bulk of this judgement, one has to be really numbed
in ones conscience to strike off hundreds of heads, looking into
they eyes of the victims to be killed. The text describes then
a number of these beheadings and the conversations that took place
between the executioners and the executed. I will spare the reader
the gory details.

We need to recognize that Muhammad got rid of a large group
that was challenging his sole authority and power over Medina,
and which was in particular refusing to believe him to a true
prophet from God. The latter was probably the more important.
As long as there were people of the book who knew their
scriptures Muhammad's position of spiritual and subsequently
political authority was challenged. We have seen in this story
that the Jews would rather die than deny the word of God in
the Torah and convert to Islam. This can be supported with
much further evidence as reported outside these few pages.
The elimination of the challenge to his spiritual authority
might well have been Muhammad's main motivation.

However, Muhammad also had had huge spoils from this "final
solution". At least 600 grown men are killed (those with the
ability to fight). This represents probably something like
500 families, each of which on average would have at least a
wife and a child, probably several. Consider, 1/5 of the
possessions of a whole tribe (possessions of 100 families
for Muhammad) plus the profit from selling the women as slaves.

The judgment over the Banu Quraiza (by Sa`d b. Mu`adh) was:

Then I give the judgment that the men should be killed,
the property divided, and the women and children be taken
captives.

Muhammad answers in endorsement of this:

You have given the judgement of Allah above the seven
heavens. [page 464]

The story continues ...

Then the apostle divided the property, wives and children
of B. Qurayza among the Muslims, and he made known on that
day the shares of horse and men, and took out the fifth.
[1/5 of all booty in all raids/wars was the personal
property of Muhammad.] ...

Then the apostle sent Sa`d b. Zayd al-Ansari brother of
b. `Abdu'l-Ashhal with some of the captive women of
B. Qurayza to Najd and he sold them for horses and weapons.
[page 466]

What more can we say? What else need we say?

A few days after the massacre of the Banu Quraiza, Sa`d bin
Mu`adh dies. It is relevant to take into account Muhammad's
evaluation of Sa`d bin Mu`adh's life and character. We read:

When the affair of B. Qurayza was disposed of, Sa`d's wound
burst open and he died a martyr therefrom.

Mu`adh b. Rifa`a al-Zuraqi told me: Anyone you like from the
men of my people told me that Gabriel came to the apostle
when Sa`d was taken, in the middle of the night wearing an
embroidered turban, and said, 'O Muhammad, who is this dead
man for whom the doors of heaven have been opened and at whom
the throne shook?' The apostle got up quickly dragging his
garment as he went to Sa`d and found him already dead.

`Abdullah b. Abu Bakr told me from `Amra d. `Abdu'l-Rahman:
As `A'isha was returning from Mecca with Usayd b. Hudayr he
heard of the death of a wife of his, and showed considerable
grief. `A'isha said: 'God forgive you, O Abu Yahya, will you
grieve over a woman when you have lost the son of your uncle,
for whom the throne shook?'

One I do not suspect told me from al-Hasan al-Basri: Sa`d was
a fat man and when the men carried him they found him light.
Some of the disaffected said, 'He was a fat man and we have
never carried a lighter bier than his.' When the apostle heard
of this he said, 'He had other carriers as well. By Him Who
holds my life in His hand the angels rejoiced at (receiving)
the spirit of Sa`d and the throne shook for him.'

Mu`adh b. Rifa`a told me from Mahmud b. `Abdu'l-Rahman b. `Amr
b. al-Jamuh from Jabir b. `Abdullah: When Sa`d was buried as we
were with the apostle he said Suhbana'llah and we said it with
him. Then he said Allah akbar and the men said it with him. When
they asked him why he had said Subhana'llah he said 'The grave
was constricted on this good man until God eased him from it'.

Muhammad's evaluation of Sa`d? He was a good man. Everything
else we might be able to accept, but calling Sa`d good certainly
puts a question mark of doubt behind the issue what moral categories
Muhammad was thinking in. In what standard could anyone call Sa`d
bin Mu`adh "a good man"? Is "goodness" the equivalent of unquestioning
loyalty to Muhammad and doing what he says? And furthermore he claims
"The throne of God shook when Sa`d died"?

There are a number of hadith confirming the above in regard to
Muhammad's evaluation of Sa`d, expressing his utter admiration of
one of his most loyal companions:

A Jubba (i.e. cloak) made of thick silken cloth was presented to
the Prophet. The Prophet used to forbid people to wear silk. So,
the people were pleased to see it. The Prophet said, "By Him in
Whose Hands Muhammad's soul is, the handkerchiefs of Sad bin
Mu'adh in Paradise are better than this." Anas added, "The present
was sent to the Prophet by Ukaidir (a Christian) from Dauma."

A silken cloth was given as a present to the Prophet . His
companions started touching it and admiring its softness. The
Prophet said, "Are you admiring its softness? The handkerchiefs of
Sad bin Muadh (in Paradise) are better and softer than it."

I heard the Prophet saying, "The Throne (of Allah) shook at the
death of Sad bin Muadh." Through another group of narrators, Jabir
added, "I heard the Prophet : saying, 'The Throne of the
Beneficent shook because of the death of Sad bin Muadh."

Muhammad has only praise and delight for this man. He fully
endorsed his judgement and it was the judgement that fulfilled
his intentions.

It is an important Islamic principle that we are judged by our
intentions.

What is your verdict on Muhammad based on these reports
from the Muslim sources?

There is one more aspect that needs to be taken into account.
Muhammad's intention was the massacre of the tribe in the
case of all three Jewish tribes. It didn't work out in the
first two cases, but he made sure the third tribe would not
get away and his plans would not again be thwarted.

All three tribes are accused of breaking their treaties.
If Muhammad would have acted on the basis of law from God
he would have judged them consistently. We see that
"circumstances" played a much more important role in
determining the punishment for these tribes. If it was
right to let them go, why did he not let the Banu Qurayza
go into exile? If it was right to execute them, why did he
give in to `Abdullah b. Ubayy b. Salul and let him prevent
the execution of the judgment of God? No true prophet would
give in to a misguided companion who wants to stop God's
righteous decree. This inconsistency shows that Muhammad
was guided chiefly by his own desires of vengeance against
those who would not accept him as a messenger from God
rather than by a law of consistent justice as it comes
from God. The judgement is about offending Muhammad, not
about offending God, and Muhammad decided according to
expediency. It was desirable for him to massacre the Banu
Qaynuqa` but when there was strong resistence from his
followers against this it became more expedient to relent
at this time. In the case of the Banu Quraiza though
Muhammad would make sure they didn't get away again.

This is how the sources look to me when I read the Sirat.
I have presented you my understanding and am interested
to hear how you read this and where I might have overlooked
anything that is essential and would throw a different
light on the events. Are there other early sources that
are of higher authenticity that must lead us to different
conclusions?

May we all seek the truth of God with sincere hearts.
May we all whole-heartedly embrace his truth and follow
him as those who surrender our lives to the Lord, but
let us also be careful to not believe every claim.

There is a right choice and there are many wrong choices.
This world has seen more false prophets than true prophets.
We need to ask from the Lord that he may give us wisdom and
understanding to discern and recognize His truth.

"Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me,
an I will listen to you.
You will seek me and find me
when you seek me with all your heart.
I will be found by you",
declares the Lord.